Benchmark Results: 3DMark And PCMark

The sub-$2000 PC offers up less than twice the performance of the $1000 build at less than twice the cost in 3DMark 11. It also scales to four times the performance of the $500 PC at less than four times the cost. Budget-builder Paul Henningsen should be very happy that these scores aren’t used in our value analysis, while I should be bummed that exceptional numbers won't be counted toward my overall finish.

PCMark is heavily weighted toward system drive performance, and our recent budget cuts prevented the use of an SSD in any machine except the most expensive build. Yet, this tests overall scores are also excluded from our value analysis, which focuses primarily on real-world performance tests and not synthetics.

These three charted profiles from PCMark’s storage benchmark are the closest we can get to real-world experience tests for hard drive performance, since most of our application starts are unbearably difficult to time accurately. These count for only 10% of the overall performance in our final analysis, and are the only synthetics in that analysis. Of course, the SSD wins.

CrashmanAnd even with the stock IHS implementation, the power savings of Ivy at 1.25V looks good compared to Sandy at 1.35V (assuming both voltage levels get you to 4.6 GHz, which is approximately true).

Yes, thanks. I forgot to mention the improved power efficiency from the new process node.

As I indicated in the Gaming PC comments, I'm good with Paul's $500 experiment. But an Enthusiast PC at $1100? I figure you'll want to alter all those parts that got Don those un-edifying comments, then yeah! Bring it on!

Aside from the 2500k, stick a GTX 670 in that thing I'll bet we'll have a real winner (depends on Tom's rules, I guess, since that part wasn't available at the time the SBM purchases were originally made).

Or step down to a 7870 and stick an SSD in it - for all those clamoring that a $1000 PC should have an SSD.

jestersageAs I indicated in the Gaming PC comments, I'm good with Paul's $500 experiment. But an Enthusiast PC at $1100? I figure you'll want to alter all those parts that got Don those un-edifying comments, then yeah! Bring it on! Aside from the 2500k, stick a GTX 670 in that thing I'll bet we'll have a real winner (depends on Tom's rules, I guess, since that part wasn't available at the time the SBM purchases were originally made). Or step down to a 7870 and stick an SSD in it - for all those clamoring that a $1000 PC should have an SSD.

670 or 7970... Not much of a difference there. The two are effectively on-par with each other, trading blows depending on the game, resolution, and settings. Why not step down to a 7950, get a cheap SandForce SSD, and then up the CPU to the 2500K, all without even sacrificing graphics performance when overclocked? 7950s and 7970s that share a PCB and cooler have pretty much identical overclocking performance with the 7970s having an in-perceptively small advantage at the same frequency and the 7950 able to hit slightly higher frequencies.

jestersageAs I indicated in the Gaming PC comments, I'm good with Paul's $500 experiment. But an Enthusiast PC at $1100? I figure you'll want to alter all those parts that got Don those un-edifying comments, then yeah! Bring it on! Aside from the 2500k, stick a GTX 670 in that thing I'll bet we'll have a real winner (depends on Tom's rules, I guess, since that part wasn't available at the time the SBM purchases were originally made). Or step down to a 7870 and stick an SSD in it - for all those clamoring that a $1000 PC should have an SSD.

Agreed, using the 670 to get similar performance without going over-budget was part of an alternative version of the conclusion. But as you said, the 670 wasn't available at the time of the order, and the thought of giving the most irate readers more ammo...

If you're going to have a $2000 System then have a $2000 system otherwise have a $1700 system. Instead you lose consistency and none of this or prior comparisons make any sense.

Maybe one of these days you'll actually have a system that I could recommend to 'anyone' and something that's Balanced i.e. makes any sense to build. You guys get so caught-up with a few folks that bitch about FPS that some of these systems become mutated into something CrAzY.

I know damn well none of you would build any of this for yourselves 90% of the time, and to say otherwise would be a lie.

Bottom-line = Consistency, if you're going to have 'Tom's Hardware Recommended' MOBO's, GPUs, CPUs, RAM, SSDs, HDDs, etc in prior Articles then please use them in the all of Builds! To do otherwise IMO looks really odd.

blazorthon670 or 7970... Not much of a difference there. The two are effectively on-par with each other, trading blows depending on the game, resolution, and settings. Why not step down to a 7950, get a cheap SandForce SSD, and then up the CPU to the 2500K, all without even sacrificing graphics performance when overclocked?

All true, but the 670 also costs much less, and iirc after an OC it can catch the 680. Could have cut $60-80 in the $1000 build if it were available then. That could have gone into a better case, and a 2500K. Might not have left room for an SSD though, seeing that they were already over by $34...but yeah $1100 could get you that as well...

jaquithBottom-line = Consistency, if you're going to have 'Tom's Hardware Recommended' MOBO's, GPUs, CPUs, RAM, SSDs, HDDs, etc in prior Articles then please use them in the all of Builds! To do otherwise IMO looks really odd.

Check out the latest Z77 roundup and see for yourself that a recommended board was used.

CrashmanCheck out the latest Z77 roundup and see for yourself that a recommended board was used.

1 out of how many? You know exactly what I mean here, and it's something that been needed for some period to be corrected. In the forum's what do you point/link to the Build or the Recommended?! Then say never mind what TH recommends (there) they meant this over (here).

Also, if a system is ±$100 with Quality then no one cares if you go over/under if it's the smart thing to do to keep the integrity of the system in line with the more important issue of a balanced system. Prices change daily!

Think about what I'm saying then next think about what TH Recommended means...what it 'should' mean?

Most importantly, this is not a complaint to you 'Personally' it's a much needed 'Policy' to help Tom's Hardware. I like you personally, I like TH, and I'd LOVE for Tom's Hardware to be the best!

The problem is that we don't cover every board made, and it's usually the cheapest ones that companies aren't interested in promoting. I generally use recommended motherboards and often use recommended cases. I can't really complain about parts being used that fall outside the coverage, because Don and Paul are really trying to cut costs below much of the component coverage.

What you really need is for me to get out of other types of articles and focus exclusively on covering all motherboards, then for TH to hire a dedicated case reviewer, etc. But we're already pushing five articles a week, so I don't think the added coverage would even fit the publishing schedule.

ArticleWith a couple of little alterations (and a slightly higher cost) we end up asking: would anyone like a $1100 Enthusiast PC?

I don't want to see a $1100 enthusiast pc. Not one gearing for value while missing a ssd anyway. Still a balanced $1000 pc with windows, monitor, mouse and keyboard included in price would be nice. Don't have to buy those, just select the models and save the money from the total.

ojasAll true, but the 670 also costs much less, and iirc after an OC it can catch the 680. Could have cut $60-80 in the $1000 build if it were available then. That could have gone into a better case, and a 2500K. Might not have left room for an SSD though, seeing that they were already over by $34...but yeah $1100 could get you that as well...

The only issue is that the 670 is very rare. AMD would drop the price of their 7900's GPUs, if Nividia boost their supply, which isn't happening anytime soon.

The $1700 PC was a nice machine. Perhaps a little more heavily focused on gaming than I'd like to see, still none of its parts raised eyebrows. It was a "safe" build, even if a little boring in some ways. If I won it, I'd probably build it as-is, although I'd likely end up selling the GTX680 because my games just don't need that power.The $1000 machine used a nightmarish case and made a few uncomfortable compromises. If I win it, I will sell the graphics card to buy a SSD, 8GB of RAM, and a considerably weaker graphics card, and build it for my non-gamer wife in her Antec Sonata III.The $500 PC was a remarkable experiment. At its specific target, it seems to do quite well, but for anyone who isn't playing games 100% of the time, it would be an exercise in frustration. Should I win it, I will probably sell the graphics card and CPU for an I5-2400, get 8GB of RAM, and build it for my non-gamer father using his HD6670 as a substantial upgrade over his E6750.

Similar to what another poster suggested, I'd like to see one of two notable "requirements" in these builds. They must either be something that a real user would actually build, in its entirely (last quarter's $2.6K build was a perfect example, this quarter's $2K build might have made it if the remaining $259 in the budget had been used), OR, it must be an experimental build purely intended to test something legitimate. It might be nothing someone would build, but maybe only because they'd never thought about it. This quarter's $500 build clearly qualifies, and I hope it is remembered as fondly as that quad Crossfire HD4850 build that a few of us have mentioned. With that latter in mind, some ideas might include physically constrained builds (must fit in carry-on luggage, or be suitable for a dorm room) or machines that must achieve certain minimums in a real-world benchmark (not necessarily a game).And although I do prefer firm budgets, jaquith has a very good point. $25 here, $50 there, adds up (and where do you stop?), but a single carefully justified $25-$50 "bump," representing perhaps another week of waiting and/or saving, seems reasonable. After all, just think what the $500 PC could have been like with a $100 CPU. It might even be appropriate to allow a "do-over" for a part, such as to avoid a fiasco like the Logisys case, or last quarter's defective motherboard. Afterall, an experimental build could become a total waste due to a single botched part.

I think that most everyone here knows that it's true the single player in BF3 is not very CPU heavy. Multiplayer is a different animal, though. A stronger quad-core can make a huge difference in that realm. I went from a Phenom II 945 to a 2500k, and my FPS jumped 15% with the same GPU setup.